As Thomas Ward puts it
We are a bit harsh when it comes to the use of the VLQ flag. We reserve the VLQ flag for totally, completely, unsalvageable crap, not for unclear questions.
VLQ has some specific things that go along with it - an automated downvote and automatic processes behind the scenes that ultimately reflect poorly against the poster of a given post. Because of the automatic downvote and some other behind the scenes stuff, I judge VLQs with the harshest of scrutiny and things because of that.
Also as per terdon (some emphasis mine)
VLQ should only be used for things that are so hopelessly awful, they can't be fixed. When thinking about whether you should flag something as VLQ, ask yourself this question: If I could, would I just delete this immediately, or can it be fixed?. If the answer to the question is yes, I would delete this and no it is impossible to fix, then you might want to cast a VLQ flag.
If, however, the post could conceivably be fixed and might contain some useful information, then please do not flag it. Instead, either fix it yourself or, if that's not an option, downvote it.
If the post is just a wrong answer, or isn't using the formatting tools correctly, or has bad grammar or other such fixable issues, please don't flag. Such posts should either be edited into shape or downvoted.
So it's clear that Very Low Quality (VLQ) flags should be used with caution. In this particular case those answers you flagged seem just technically wrong answers (or at most not an attempt to answer at all, there's a Not An Answer (NAA) flag for that) and hence should not be flagged as VLQ (in fact there is no flag for wrong answers, those should be downvoted and commented on instead).
flagthat was decline by mods. There were no ill-effects but it is good to know privileges can be revoked if too many flags are rejected by mods. Thanks to your ban others may be spared the same experience by reading this Q&A. +1